Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Republicans say the darndest things!Follow

#52 Jul 08 2010 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
Kaelesh,

Quote:
Because we do it all the time?


No we only do it when it serves our national interest; or rather what our elected officials believe our national interests are at the time. And the reason the muslism countries are p*ssed is because we have the power.


#53 Jul 08 2010 at 7:48 AM Rating: Decent
Right, right. I totally forgot about that whole "national interest" and "personal freedoms" and "security" we always drone on about.

Ya know, 3 or 4 attacks in 234 years doesn't exactly make us pussies. And for being such a Christian nation, we don't turn the other cheek very often.
#54 Jul 08 2010 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
Kaelesh,

Quote:
we don't turn the other cheek very often.


I'm not surprised you don't understand the meaning or context with which this was used.






Edited, Jul 8th 2010 10:04am by knoxxsouthy
#55 Jul 08 2010 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
I'm not surprised that you think I'm the one that got it wrong.
#56gbaji, Posted: Jul 08 2010 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And now we come to it. So it was never about "winning" in Afghanistan, was it? Gee. If only some of us could have predicted this! If only someone had said something like: "They're only saying we should focus on Afghanistan because they want us out of Iraq, and once we focus on Afghanistan, they'll argue we should just get out of there as well". Hmmm... Someone said that. Who could it have been?
#57 Jul 12 2010 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:






So you agree with what Steele said? You agree that Bush's strategy of focusing on other more significant nations in the region was right? You agree that it wasn't really as important to muddle around in Afghanistan as it was to take out Iraq and work politically with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to prevent such a thing from happening again?


Lolwut? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Aggressive invasion of other peoples countries is what I'm against.

What you should have done imo was treat the aftermath of the 9/11 events as a crime and proceed accordingly. UYou know? Like the civilised country you pertain to be. Full scale invasion of Afghanistan was never going to end well (especially for the Afghanis who DID NOT ATTACK YOU). Invading Iraq was and is a fUcking travesty. And Saudi and Pakistan? Yeah, you guys need to work politically with them from a platform of honesty. As in "honestly, if you fUcks dont start behaing in a civilised manner then we are going to cease dealing with you as tho' you are our best mates".



gbaji wrote:
Seems like you've been cheering on the wrong side all this time. Also seems as though you should have been bashing Obama a couple years ago when the bulk of his foreign policy position consisted of "We should be fighting in Afghanistan, cause that's the good war we should be trying to win". Strange that I don't recall you saying he was wrong back then. Why do you suppose that is?


I have been bashing anyone who has thought that war in Afghanistan was a good plan from the start. If you've not been paying attn thats your problem not mine.

gbaji wrote:
Yeah. You're a walking stereotype.



And you read what you want to see, not whats written. whats your point?

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#58 Jul 12 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
You agree that Bush's strategy of focusing on other more significant nations in the region was right?


Iraq, you mean? That wasn't a country he listed, and that's probably because it was entirely irrelevant.

Sidenote: If the war in Iraq was justified the Bush administration certainly failed in arguing why, as all publicly stated reasons were shown to be false.
#59 Jul 12 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So it was never about "winning" in Afghanistan, was it? Gee. If only some of us could have predicted this! If only someone had said something like: "They're only saying we should focus on Afghanistan because they want us out of Iraq, and once we focus on Afghanistan, they'll argue we should just get out of there as well".

"They" who? Random people from New Zealand? Way to call it.

I don't think we should get out of Afghanistan.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jul 12 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Since it doesn't merit a new thread I thought I'd just link to tea partiers say the darnedest things.
#61 Jul 13 2010 at 4:43 AM Rating: Good
Allegory wrote:
Since it doesn't merit a new thread I thought I'd just link to tea partiers say the darnedest things.


That **** makes my brain asplode.
#62 Jul 13 2010 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
Paula,

Quote:
Aggressive invasion of other peoples countries is what I'm against


What's the difference between invaders and liberators?




Quote:
Invading Iraq was and is a ******* travesty


The travesty is pretending you actually care about this. What you really hate is the US using it's power to serve its interests; you're filled with pure jealousy.


#63 Jul 13 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Kavek,

Every nation in the world believed Saddam when he said he had wmd's. He'd already used them once. Just like most countries believe that nut in Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The simple fact is Saddam broke the ceasefire. That's all the reason we needed to go in.

#64 Jul 13 2010 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
The simple fact is Saddam broke the ceasefire. That's all the reason we needed to go in.



What ceasefire? We've been bombing them since 1991.
#65 Jul 13 2010 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Kaels,

You can't really be that stupid so i'm assuming you're just bored. Simply google 1991 Iraq ceasefire.

#66 Jul 13 2010 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Kaels,

You can't really be that stupid so i'm assuming you're just bored. Simply google 1991 Iraq ceasefire.

"Google (issue)." The calling card of an internet pundit with no ability to understand for himself anything he reads.
#67 Jul 13 2010 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Every nation in the world believed Saddam when he said he had wmd's.


Only 2/3 of America did. Never forget, there was about a third of us in the US who realized that dictators bluff.
#68 Jul 13 2010 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Kaels,

You can't really be that stupid so i'm assuming you're just bored. Simply google 1991 Iraq ceasefire.



Why don't you google some **** once in a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq wrote:
Since the Persian Gulf War 1991, the US and Britain had been keeping a tight rein on Saddam Hussein, waging an undeclared conflict against Iraq for twelve years. President Bill Clinton had maintained sanctions and ordered air strikes in the "Iraqi no-fly zones" (Operation Desert Fox), in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by political enemies inside Iraq.
#69 Jul 13 2010 at 8:51 AM Rating: Decent
Cat,

Quote:
Never forget, there was about a third of us in the US who realized that dictators bluff



I don't want a leader that has to guess whether a genocidal mass murderer is bluffing about what weapons he has, especially with the knowledge that he's used them in the past. Maybe that's just me.


#70 Jul 13 2010 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Every nation in the world believed Saddam when he said he had wmd's.

Which is why Powell had to embarrass himself and and soil his reputation by trying to make the case before the United Nations even as the inspectors were coming up empty.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Jul 13 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Decent
Jophed,

Like I said I'd rather we go in to make sure he didn't have them. Of course liberals like to gamble with americans safetey when it's politically expedient.



Edited, Jul 13th 2010 12:15pm by knoxxsouthy
#72 Jul 13 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,

Like I said I'd rather we go in to make sure he didn't have them. Of course liberals like to gamble with americans safetey when it's politically expedient.



Edited, Jul 13th 2010 12:15pm by knoxxsouthy
So you're saying its perfectly OK to invade a country just in case?

Why haven't we invaded Iran, whom we know have nuclear capabilities? Because we have nothing to gain by doing so.
#73 Jul 13 2010 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
Ash,

If another country continually threatens us and has already shown they will use genocidal force YES.

#74 Jul 13 2010 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ash,

If another country continually threatens us and has already shown they will use genocidal force YES.

Well we'd better get busy then, there's a couple dozen or more other countries that fit that bill. Especially when by "continually threaten us" you mean "don't like us very much."

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 8:00am by AshOnMyTomatoes
#75 Jul 13 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Like I said I'd rather we go in to make sure he didn't have them.

Sure. Your moronic notions of foreign policy aside, it can be safely said that you were wrong about every other world leader being sure that Iraq possessed WMDs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Jul 13 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Jophed,

Quote:
it can be safely said that you were wrong about every other world leader being sure that Iraq possessed WMDs.


I didn't say every world leader; I did say every nation. Do you even see the difference? That aside WMD's were found;

Quote:
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."


So yeah they did have them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 289 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (289)